Comparison of vaginal mesh extrusion rates between a lightweight type I polypropylene mesh versus heavier mesh in the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse

Feasibility of combining pelvic reconstruction with gynecologic oncology-related surgery

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

At our institution, every patient seen by the gynecologic oncology service is screened for pelvic floor dysfunction. This study was aimed at determining if a combined surgical approach by gynecologic oncology and urogynecology services at our institution was feasible and safe for this patient population.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of patients undergoing combined surgery by gynecologic oncology and urogynecology services at our institution from 2013 to 2021. Perioperative variables, postoperative adverse events, and long-term outcomes were assessed, and descriptive statistics were performed.

RESULTS

From 20 December 2013 to 29 January 2021, a total of 102 patients underwent concurrent surgical repair of pelvic organ prolapse and/or stress urinary incontinence. Seventy-three patients (71.6%) had normal/benign pathologic conditions, and 29 (28.4%) had premalignant/malignant pathologic conditions. Ten patients (9.8%) had a postoperative complication, including reoperation for exposed midurethral sling (4.9%), urinary retention requiring midurethral sling release (2.9%), reoperation for hemoperitoneum (1.0%), and anemia requiring blood transfusion (1.0%). Nine complications occurred in patients with benign/normal pathologic conditions (12.3%), and one complication occurred in patients with pre-malignant/malignant pathologic conditions (3.4%).

CONCLUSIONS

In our single-institution experience, concurrent gynecologic oncology and pelvic floor reconstructive surgery were safe and feasible in combination with no reported major morbidity events.

Update in Transvaginal Grafts: The Role of Lightweight Meshes, Biologics, and Hybrid Grafts in Pelvic Organ Prolapse Surgery

Transvaginal mesh/grafts have been popularized over the past 20 years in an attempt to improve the longevity of traditional vaginal pelvic organ prolapse (POP) surgery. Several national bodies have concluded that the proposed benefits of mesh/graft implantation are outweighed by the significant increase in surgery complications related to these products. As a consequence mesh products for vaginal POP surgery have been withdrawn from use in many countries. This article is a narrative review of newer mesh and graft products including lightweight polypropylene mesh products, biological grafts, hybrid grafts, and tissue engineered grafts.

Comparison of Prolift, Perigee-Apogee, Prosima, and Elevate transvaginal mesh systems in pelvic organ prolapse surgery: Clinical outcomes of a long-term observational study

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate and compare the long-term clinical outcomes of four different transvaginal mesh systems.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 695 patients classified into four groups (Prolift, n = 132; Perigee-Apogee, n = 186; Prosima, n = 60; Elevate; n = 317), with a median follow-up time of 5.8 years (range 0.5-12.2 years). The outcomes were objective anatomic success (Pelvic Organ Prolapse [POP] Quantification system stage ≤1), mesh exposure, and urologic functional assessments.

RESULTS

For anatomic outcomes, we stepwise analyzed the short-term (within 3 years) and long-term (after 3 years) results. Prolift had the highest long-term success rate (9 years: 82.1%, P = .007). Elevate had a comparable short-term success rate (3 years: 87.5%), but its long-term success rate significantly decreased over time (5 years: 78.6%, 9 years: 66.8%, P = .007). Prosima had the lowest short-term success rate (P = .027). For the long-term mesh exposure rate (9-year cumulative), Elevate had the lowest with 11.1%; next were Perigee-Apogee (18.8%) and Prolift (24.6%); and Prosima had the highest with 39.4%, with a significant difference. In terms of urinary functional results, we observed no significant differences in voiding dysfunction, de novo stress urinary incontinence, or de novo overactive bladder symptoms among the four mesh groups, whether combined with midurethral sling surgery or not.

CONCLUSION

Different vaginal mesh designs have various advantages and features. Prolift provided the best long-term anatomic success but had a high mesh exposure rate. Elevate gave comparable short-term success but had a decreased long-term success rate. However, Elevate is superior with the lowest long-term mesh exposure rate. Prosima had the worst anatomic correction and highest mesh exposure rates. This study provides a comprehensive long-term comparative result for POP patients and surgeons.

3 Year outcome after treatment of uterovaginal prolapse with a 6-point fixation mesh

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to describe the intermediate outcome of a single-incision 6-point fixation transvaginal mesh for the treatment of primary and recurrent pelvic organ prolapse (POP).

STUDY DESIGN

This was a prospective cohort study including consecutive patients undergoing POP repair with the InGYNious anterior transvaginal mesh. Inclusion criteria were women with symptomatic stage II POP or higher. Exclusion criteria were the unwillingness or inability to give written informed consent, malignant diseases, neuro-muscular disorders, chronic pain syndrome or previous radiation in the pelvis. Every study participant completed a structured questionnaire, a urogynecological examination according to the IUGA-ICS POP-Q staging system and the validated P-QoL questionnaire before the operation and three years postoperatively.

RESULTS

254 patients were included into the study, 179 were available for the three-year follow-up (70 %). Sixteen patients (8.2 %) had undergone reoperation for recurrent or de novo prolapse (12/16 patients underwent reoperation in the posterior compartment) and were excluded from the objective outcome analysis. In the final study group, all POP-Q measurements, urge urinary incontinence and voiding dysfunction were significantly improved. The de novo SUI rate was 27/ 120 (23 %) in women without reoperation for SUI and/ or POP and without primary SUI. No serious adverse events occurred. Four (1.5 %) patients had mesh exposure at the one-year follow-up and been treated with local oestrogen. At three-year follow-up, no new mesh exposure was seen. De novo dyspareunia rate was low (n = 5 (3 %)).

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, the objective outcome three years after anterior POP repair with the InGYNious transvaginal mesh was good. The reoperation rate both for mesh related problems or prolapse were rare.

Transvaginal single-port laparoscopic pelvic reconstruction with Y-shaped mesh: experiences of 93 cases

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

To demonstrate the outcomes of pelvic reconstruction using Y-shaped mesh in patients with multiple-compartment pelvic organ prolapse via transvaginal single-port laparoscopy.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective case series study. Patients diagnosed with severe multiple-compartment prolapse were enrolled between July 1, 2017, and March 31, 2020. Patients underwent transvaginal single-port laparoscopic pelvic reconstruction with Y-shaped mesh. Baseline data and perioperative results were collected. Patients were followed up with the POP-Q score, Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI-20) and Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire short form (PISQ-12). T-test was used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

Operations were successful in all 93 patients without conversion or serious complications. Mean operative time was 132.70 ± 28.02 min and estimated blood loss was 110.65 ± 56.31 ml. VAS pain score was 2.91 ± 1.16 and cosmetic score was 9.20 ± 0.60. During 1-33 months of follow-up, no recurrence or mesh exposure was observed. Five patients suffered from de novo SUI, six had constipation, two had dyspareunia, and one had persistent pelvic pain. The pre- and postoperative Aa point was +2.13 ± 1.23 vs. -2.91 ± 0.28 (P < 0.05), C point was 2.63 ± 2.41 vs. -6.86 ± 0.69 (P < 0.05), and Ap point was -0.26 ± 1.79 vs. -2.97 ± 0.16 (P < 0.05). The PFDI-20 score was 76.81 ± 32.06 vs. 18.18 ± 20.25 (P < 0.05), while the PISQ-12 score was 34.30 ± 4.17 vs. 37.20 ± 2.60 (P < 0.05), which suggested significant improvements in both physical prolapse and quality of life after surgery.

CONCLUSION

Transvaginal single-port laparoscopic pelvic reconstruction with Y-shaped mesh is a feasible, effective and safe treatment option for severe multiple-compartment prolapse. Patients may benefit from its mild pain level and good cosmetic effect as well as only minor mesh-related complications.

Robotic Sacrocolpopexy for Treatment of Apical Compartment Prolapse

Abdominal sacrocolpopexy is the gold-standard treatment for apical compartment prolapse, as it is more effective and durable than the transvaginal approach. In the current era of minimally invasive surgery, laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy techniques have been described, but have not gained popularity due to their complexity and steep learning curves. To overcome this problem, robotic sacrocolpopexy was introduced, and has shown equivalent outcomes and safety compared to open and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy based on findings that have been accumulated over 15 years.

Sacrocolpopexy compared with transvaginal mesh surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The use of mesh is controversial in the treatment of female pelvic organ prolapse.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review the outcomes of sacrocolpopexy compared with transvaginal mesh surgery and to provide evidence-based suggestions.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and clinicaltrials.gov databases were searched on 21 November 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials and prospective and retrospective cohort studies were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were extracted by one reviewer and examined by a second reviewer for accuracy. Odds ratios and 95% CI were calculated using random-effects models.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty comparative studies were included. The meta-analysis was performed with subgroups. The summary odds ratios of the randomised controlled group were 1.84 (95% CI 0.79-4.29, I²  = 75%) for anatomical success, 1.41 (95% CI 0.47-4.24, I²  = 38%) for subjective success, 0.42 (95% CI 0.18-0.98, I²  = 0%) for mesh complications, 0.61 (95% CI 0.20-1.91, I²  = 0%) for prolapse reoperation and 0.44 (95% CI 0.23-0.88, I²  = 0%) for de novo dyspareunia. The mean differences were 0.77 (95% CI 0.31-1.23, I²  = 66%) for total vaginal length and -1.28 (95% CI -2.00 to -0.55, I²  = 66%) for point C after surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Very-low-quality evidence indicated that the anatomical and subjective success rates of sacrocolpopexy were similar to those of transvaginal mesh surgery; sacrocolpopexy might be more beneficial than transvaginal mesh surgery in terms of mesh-related complication rates, prolapse recurrence and de novo dyspareunia. However, additional high-quality randomised trials with long-term follow-up durations are needed.

TWEETABLE ABSTRACT

Sacrocolpopexy is beneficial after surgical anatomical changes and has decreased rates of mesh-related complications and dyspareunia.

Vaginal posterior isthmic sling: A report of 53 cases

INTRODUCTION

Sacrospinofixation is used for fundic vaginal vault's prolapse or to prevent mid-level or posterior prolapse. It can lead to complications such as dyspareunia, chronic pain, and quality of life impairment. Anchoring a posterior isthmic sling to the two sacrospinous ligaments is an alternative to classic Richter's sacrospinofixation. Objective of this study is to report the first cases of vaginal posterior isthmic slings.

METHODS

This study is retrospective and unicentric. It includes women who had posterior isthmic sling at the time of a surgery with a mesh for anterior prolapse by vaginal way between 2010 and 2016 in the gynecologic department of a teaching hospital. Report of efficacy and tolerance was performed.

RESULTS

Between 2010 and 2016, 53 women were included with a posterior isthmic sling and a mesh for an anterior prolapse. POP-Q evolution during the follow-up in the posterior isthmic sling group assess of a good efficacy of the sling. Four women (7.5%) required second surgery in 28 months following initial surgery (only 1 for excision). Four women (7.5%) had a prolapse recurrence in a mean time of 30 months without recurrent surgery. Women's satisfaction level was high (8.0/10 [7,1-8,8]).

CONCLUSION

Efficacy and tolerance of the posterior isthmic sling seems good. It might then be an option for mid-level prolapses in case of vaginal surgery with mesh for anterior prolapse. A non-inferiority trial should be performed to be able to conclude on the place of this alternative to Richter's sacrospinofixation.

The in vivo biocompatibility of titanized polypropylene lightweight mesh is superior to that of conventional polypropylene mesh

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the histological response to and changes in the biomechanical properties of titanized polypropylene lightweight mesh and conventional polypropylene mesh at 1 and 12 weeks following implantation in the sheep vagina.

METHODS

We compared a titanized polypropylene lightweight mesh (TiLOOP Mesh) to a conventional polypropylene mesh (Gynemesh PS) in a sheep vagina model. Explants were harvested after 1 and 12 weeks (n = 6/mesh type/time point) for histological observation. After 12 weeks, mesh-tissue complex specimens were biomechanically assessed by a uniaxial tension system.

RESULTS

One week after implantation, there was no significant difference in the inflammatory response between the two groups. Twelve weeks after implantation, the TiLOOP light mesh elicited a lower inflammatory response than was observed for the Gynemesh PS (1.44 ± 0.61 vs 2.05 ± 0.80, P = .015). Twelve weeks after implantation, the collagen I/III ratio was lower in the TiLOOP light mesh group than in the Gynemesh PS group (9.41 ± 5.06 vs 15.21 ± 8.21, P = .019). The messenger RNA expression levels of the inflammatory factors interleukin 10 and tumor necrosis factor α were lower in the TiLOOP Mesh group than in the Gynemesh PS group at both 1 and 12 weeks (P < .05). There were no significant differences in any of the evaluated biomechanical characteristics between the two meshes (P > .05).

CONCLUSION

Although the titanized polypropylene lightweight mesh induces slightly less tissue reactivity and has better in vivo biocompatibility, further studies should be conducted including the complications and the success rate of pelvic organ prolapse in patients before recommending it in pelvic floor reconstruction.

Landmarks in vaginal mesh development: polypropylene mesh for treatment of SUI and POP

Vaginal meshes used in the treatment of stress urinary incontinence (SUI) and pelvic organ prolapse (POP) have produced highly variable outcomes, causing life-changing complications in some patients while providing others with effective, minimally invasive treatments. The risk:benefit ratio when using vaginal meshes is a complex issue in which a combination of several factors, including the inherent incompatibility of the mesh material with some applications in pelvic reconstructive surgeries and the lack of appropriate regulatory approval processes at the time of the premarket clearance of these products, have contributed to the occurrence of complications caused by vaginal mesh. Surgical mesh used in hernia repair has evolved over many years, from metal implants to knitted polymer meshes that were adopted for use in the pelvic floor for treatment of POP and SUI. The evolution of the material and textile properties of the surgical mesh was guided by clinical feedback from hernia repair procedures, which were also being modified to obtain the best outcomes with use of the mesh. Current evidence shows how surgical mesh fails biomechanically when used in the pelvic floor and materials with improved performance can be developed using modern material processing and tissue engineering techniques.

Management of vaginal mesh exposure: A systematic review

Objectives: To identify various predisposing factors, the clinical presentation, and the management of vaginal mesh-related complications, with special emphasis on mesh exposure and the indications for and results of vaginal mesh removal.

Methods: A systematic literature review was performed using a search strategy based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses criteria. PubMed was queried for studies regarding aetiology, risk factors, and management of vaginal mesh exposure from 1 January 2008 to June 2018. Full-text articles were obtained for eligible abstracts. Relevant articles were included, and the cited references were used to identify relevant articles not previously included.

Results: A total of 102 abstracts were identified from the PubMed search criteria. An additional 45 studies were identified based on review of the cited references. After applying eligibility criteria and excluding impertinent articles, 58 studies were included in the final analysis.

Conclusion: Numerous studies have found at least some degree of symptomatic improvement regardless of the amount of mesh removed. Focal areas of exposure or pain can be successfully managed with partial mesh removal with low rates of complications. With partial mesh removal, many patients will ultimately require subsequent mesh removal procedures. For this reason, complete mesh excision is an alternative for patients with diffuse vaginal pain, large mesh exposure, and extrusion of mesh into adjacent viscera. However, when considering complete mesh removal, it is important to counsel patients regarding possible complications of removal and the increased risk of recurrent stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse postoperatively.

Abbreviations: MUS: midurethral sling; OR: odds ratio; POP: pelvic organ prolapse; PRISMA: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses; SUI: stress urinary incontinence; TOT: transobturator; TVT: tension-free vaginal tape

Experimental study of a new original mesh developed for pelvic floor reconstructive surgery

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

Most synthetic meshes used in transvaginal surgery are made of polypropylene, which has a stable performance, but does not easily degrade in vivo. However, mesh-related complications are difficult to address and have raised serious concerns. A new biomaterial mesh with good tissue integration and few mesh-related complications is needed. To evaluate the effect of a new bacterial cellulose (BC) mesh on pelvic floor reconstruction following implantation in the vagina of sheep after 1 and 12 weeks.

METHODS

The meshes were implanted in the submucosa of the posterior vagina wall of sheep. At 1 and 12 weeks after surgery, mesh-tissue complex (MTC) specimens were harvested for histological studies and biomechanical evaluation. At 12 weeks after surgery, MTC specimens were biomechanically assessed by a uniaxial tension "pulley system".

RESULTS

The BC mesh elicited a higher inflammatory response than Gynemesh™PS at both 1 and 12 weeks after implantation. Twelve weeks after implantation, the BC mesh resulted in less fibrosis than Gynemesh™PS. Compared with the Gynemesh™PS group, the BC mesh group had increased mRNA expression of MMP-1, MMP-2, and MMP-9 (P < 0.05), but decreased expression of the anti-inflammatory factor IL-4 (P < 0.05). Twelve weeks after implantation, the ultimate load and maximum elongation percentage of the BC mesh were significantly lower than those of Gynemesh™PS.

CONCLUSIONS

The BC mesh could not be a promising biomaterial for pelvic floor reconstructive surgery unless the production process and parameters were improved.

Changes in Female Sexual Function After Vaginal Mesh Repair Versus Native Tissue Repair for Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

AIM

To evaluate changes in female sexual function after transvaginal mesh (TVM) repair versus native tissue repair for pelvic organ prolapse.

METHODS

Eligible studies, published through November 2017, were retrieved through searches of ClinicalTrials.gov, MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Review databases and associated bibliographies. We included randomized control trials of transvaginal prolapse surgery with either mesh repair or native tissue repair regarding the outcomes of sexual function, de novo and postoperative dyspareunia with a minimum of 3 months of follow-up.

RESULTS

Seventeen trials including 2,976 patients (1,488 with TVM repair and 1,488 with native tissue repair) were identified. There was no significant difference in postoperative dyspareunia after TVM repair versus native tissue repair (risk ratio [RR] = 1.07; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.76-1.50). Likewise, there was no significant difference in de novo dyspareunia after TVM repair versus native tissue repair (RR = 0.91; 95% CI = 0.52-1.61). There was also no significant difference in the short form Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire score after TVM mesh repair versus native tissue repair (mean difference = 0.26; 95% CI = -1.34 to 1.85).

CONCLUSION

Sexual function and de novo and postoperative dyspareunia were similar between the patients who underwent TVM repair and those who underwent native tissue repair. Liao S-C, Huang W-C, Su T-H, et al. Changes in Female Sexual Function After Vaginal Mesh Repair Versus Native Tissue Repair for Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. J Sex Med 2019;16:633-639.

1-year outcome after treatment of uterovaginal prolapse with a 6-point fixation mesh

Introduction

The aim of this study was to describe the safety and anatomical results of a surgical approach with a single‐incision 6‐point fixation vaginal mesh for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse at perioperatively and at 1‐year follow‐up.

Materials and Methods

This was a prospective observational study of patients who underwent operation receiving an InGYNious anterior transvaginal mesh. All patients with symptomatic stage II prolapse or higher were included in the study. Exclusion criteria were the unwillingness or inability to give written informed consent, neuromuscular disorders, malignant diseases, previous radiation in the pelvis, or chronic pain syndrome. Every patient completed a structured questionnaire and a full physical examination according to the IUGA‐ICS POP‐Q staging system before the operation and at 1‐year follow‐up.

Results

Two hundred fifty‐four patients (91%) were included in the study. The intraoperative complication rate was 7% with hemorrhage being the most common complication. Six patients (2.4%) had undergone reoperation for prolapse (four out of the six patients had reoperation in the posterior compartment) and were excluded from the objective outcome analysis. In the remaining 248 patients all POP‐Q measurements were significantly improved in the anterior and apical compartments. Similarly, urge urinary incontinence and voiding dysfunction improved significantly.

Conclusions

In this series, the objective outcome one year after the InGYNious mesh was good with low numbers of mesh‐related problems or reoperation for prolapse.

Risk factors and management of vaginal mesh erosion after pelvic organ prolapse surgery

OBJECTIVE

Mesh erosion is a serious and not uncommon complication in women undergoing vaginal mesh repair. We hypothesized that mesh erosion is associated with the patient's comorbidities, surgical procedures, and mesh material. The aims of this study were to identify the risk factors and optimal management for mesh erosion.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All women who underwent vaginal mesh repair from 2004 to 2014 were retrospectively reviewed. Data on patients' characteristics, presenting symptoms, treatment and outcomes were collected from their medical records.

RESULTS

A total of 741 women underwent vaginal mesh repairs, of whom 47 had mesh erosion. The median follow-up period was 13 months (range 3-84 months). Another nine patients with mesh erosion were referred form other hospitals. Multivariate analysis revealed that concomitant hysterectomy (odds ratio 27.02, 95% confidence interval 12.35-58.82; p < 0.01) and hypertension (odds ratio 5.95, 95% confidence interval 2.43-14.49; p < 0.01) were independent risk factors for mesh erosion. Of these 56 women, 20 (36%) were successfully treated by conservative management, while 36 (64%) required subsequent surgical revision. Compared with surgery, conservative treatment was successful if the size of the erosion was smaller than 0.5 cm (p < 0.01). Six patients (17%) had recurrent erosions after primary revision, but all successfully healed after the second surgery.

CONCLUSION

Concomitant hysterectomy and hypertension were associated with mesh erosion. In the management of mesh erosion, conservative treatment can be tried as the first-line treatment for smaller erosions, while surgical repair for larger erosions. Recurrent erosions could happen and requires repairs several times.

Factors that affect outcomes of prolapse repair using single-incision vaginal mesh procedures

AIMS

Single-incision vaginal mesh (SIVM) procedures for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) differed in mesh fabrication and implantation that may affect treatment outcomes. We aim to evaluate and compare the safety and effectiveness of two SIVM procedures, and explore factors that may have associations with surgical effectiveness.

METHODS

Our data of using two SIVM procedures for a total (anterior and posterior) vaginal mesh repair were studied. Patients who had ≧stage 2 POP and underwent either Elevate (n = 85) using anchored, lightweight meshes or Prosima procedures (n = 95) using non-anchored, original meshes were assessed. A detailed comparison of 1 year outcomes was made.

RESULTS

Of the 180 patients, 172 (95.6%) attended the 1-year follow-up. Demographic data were similar between groups except a higher average age (64.5 vs 60.4, P = 0.001) was noted in the Elevate (n = 84) group compared to the Prosima (n = 88) group. Surgical results were also similar except a significantly higher objective cure (POP stage ≦1) rate (89.3% vs 78.4%, P = 0.042) was noted in the Elevate group. The safety profile favored Elevate with a lower, but not statistically significant, rate (4.7% vs 12.5%, P = 0.106) of vaginal mesh exposure. After a statistical analysis, we found anatomic recurrence (POP stage ≧2) after the SIVM procedures had strong (P < 0.05) associations with "early surgical cases," "Prosima procedure," "advanced cystocele (Ba > +3 cm)," and "prior prolapse repair," respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Beyond a learning curve, Elevate performed better than Prosima in POP repair regarding surgical effectiveness. Meanwhile, several predisposing factors that may affect recurrence after SIVM procedures were found.

Biomechanical properties of synthetic surgical meshes for pelvic prolapse repair

Synthetic meshes are widely used for surgical repair of different kind of prolapses. In the light of the experience of abdominal wall repair, similar prostheses are currently used in the pelvic region, to restore physiological anatomy after organ prolapse into the vaginal wall, that represent a recurrent dysfunction. For this purpose, synthetic meshes are surgically positioned in contact with the anterior and/or posterior vaginal wall, to inferiorly support prolapsed organs. Nonetheless, while mesh implantation restores physiological anatomy, it is often associated with different complications in the vaginal region. These potentially dangerous effects induce the surgical community to reconsider the safety and efficacy of mesh transvaginal placement. For this purpose, the evaluation of state-of-the-art research may provide the basis for a comprehensive analysis of mesh compatibility and functionality. The aim of this work is to review synthetic surgical meshes for pelvic organs prolapse repair, taking into account the mechanics of mesh material and structure, and to relate them with pelvic and vaginal tissue biomechanics. Synthetic meshes are currently available in different chemical composition, fiber and textile conformations. Material and structural properties are key factors in determining mesh biochemical and mechanical compatibility in vivo. The most significant results on vaginal tissue and surgical meshes mechanical characterization are here reported and discussed. Moreover, computational models of the pelvic region, which could support the surgeon in the evaluation of mesh performances in physiological conditions, are recalled.

Coating of mesh grafts for prolapse and urinary incontinence repair with autologous plasma: exploration stage of a surgical innovation

Purpose. Optimized biocompatibility is a major requirement for alloplastic materials currently applied for stress urinary incontinence (SUI) and pelvic organ prolapse (POP) repair. In the preliminary studies the mesh modification by coating with autologous plasma resulted in the increased adherence score in vitro and improved biocompatibility in an animal model. The first use of plasma coated meshes in human is presented. Materials and Methods. Between 04/2013 and 05/2014, 20 patients with the indication for SUI and POP repair were selected in a single institution. The applied meshes were modified by autologous plasma coating prior to implantation. A retrospective chart review for peri- and early postoperative complications was performed. Functional outcome and QoL were evaluated pre- and postoperatively. Results. The functional outcome and QoL improved significantly in all groups. Two reoperations (Grade IIIB) with the release of TVT-mesh in anesthesia due to the obstruction were needed. No other severe complications were registered. Conclusion. For the first time we applied a mesh modification in a human setting according to IDEAL criteria of surgical innovations. The procedure of mesh coating with autologous plasma is safe and a prospective randomized trial proving a positive effect of plasma coating on the biocompatibility and morbidity outcome with long-term registry is planned.